something for you dimwits to consider

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Macfistowannabe said:
Capitalism - while grossly competitive - is a method of making citizens useful in society, as are socialism and communism, but those two offer less motivation. The beauty of capitalism is the dream of financial freedom, but that does not go without a cost. You have to work to get where you want to be, even if it means competing with those who have an advantage over you. No, it's not always fair, but when you think about it, neither are other methods of government.

About the whole slavery thing, I can't say it's the same thing as it was many years ago. Let's put on our thinking caps a second. Granted that it's usually your responsibility in this system to support yourself, we aren't restricted education, we aren't physically harmed, and we can live wherever we can afford to. Yes, you can bust your butt all your life, and probably won't catch a big break. It's just like our music industry for example. But is it slavery? We're all free, we spend our money on whatever we choose, let's be thankful for our options.


its not slavery. its a lot better than that. because slaves never really bought into the idea of being slaves. we all bought into capitalism. we produce the same stupid machines, and then become prisoners of our own genius.

yeah we can spend the money on whatever we like, but more THINGS does not necessarily make a person happy. we've all traded our souls for plasma TVs, super-fast laptops, convenience of going to wal-mart and our classy cars.

and we cant even get them back.

how would you find something you dont even realize you lost?
 
all_i_want said:
its not slavery. its a lot better than that. because slaves never really bought into the idea of being slaves. we all bought into capitalism. we produce the same stupid machines, and then become prisoners of our own genius.

yeah we can spend the money on whatever we like, but more THINGS does not necessarily make a person happy. we've all traded our souls for plasma TVs, super-fast laptops, convenience of going to wal-mart and our classy cars.

and we cant even get them back.

how would you find something you dont even realize you lost?
The pursuit of happiness can be tied in with the pursuit of a fulfilling life. I don't know how a government can possibly make everyone happy at the same time. Provision is a good thing, but the dream for some and reality for others of financial freedom is the sacrifice to be paid. What incentives do other forms of government have to offer besides regulation? Sure enough, they may provide, but the cost is hefty on those who could've pursued their dreams to fight for a better society, and as a result, every major economic move is made by the government. History would inform us with its past with numerous careless mistakes that the government is not always right.

I'm not trashing the government at all - at least not that I'm aware of - but think of it this way. Picture George Bush with ten times the power he has right now, picture Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, and all the other American AIDS activists as our financial equals. Hypothetically, if Bush tells Bono that he has no interest in helping Africa, that would be an awful thing. Even more because there would be no wealthy citizens to back Bono up! I couldn't imagine much worse of a scenario. The same ignorant decision could've been made for tsunami relief. But the people wanted to help out with or without the government, and capitalism entitles them to do so. The people should always have a voice, and the people should always be able to invest in the righteous causes they believe in.

...I'd rather sell my soul for a laptop than sell my soul for a cheeseburger, but that's just me being a capitalist... :wink:
 
Last edited:
You're all lucky Kieran isn't American or he'd sue you all. First you call him a female, then you call him deathbear?
Let's be nice to newbs and Kierans.

:tsk:
 
Macfistowannabe said:


Hypothetically, if Bush tells Bono that he has no interest in helping Africa, that would be an awful thing. Even more because there would be no wealthy citizens to back Bono up! I couldn't imagine much worse of a scenario. The same ignorant decision could've been made for tsunami relief. But the people wanted to help out with or without the government, and capitalism entitles them to do so. The people should always have a voice, and the people should always be able to invest in the righteous causes they believe in.

But Bush wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for capitalism.

One can argue we'd have a much better crop of politicians. It wouldn't be just the rich who can afford to run.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But Bush wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for capitalism.

One can argue we'd have a much better crop of politicians. It wouldn't be just the rich who can afford to run.
I don't think they would be much better if any better. Corrupt governments may arise from too much power. We can be governed by the people, or we could be governed by the government. Either way, the government will use propaganda to influence thought and action. The worst governments come from totalitarian societies. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Lenin - all abused their power to oppress their own people. There are no individuals in the society - and conformity is not an option. They used torture as a means of propaganda. They controlled all public and private life.

If there is any system that benefits society more than capitalism - yet allows for individual freedoms, I would like to be informed on your argument.
 
Macfistowannabe said:


If there is any system that benefits society more than capitalism - yet allows for individual freedoms, I would like to be informed on your argument.

I believe there are ways to provide more equality and still promote individualism.

The idea that two people the same in almost everyway one works 60 hours a week making barely 50,000 a year and one that works 30 hours a week and makes 7 million a year doesn't sit well with me.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I believe there are ways to provide more equality and still promote individualism.
Such as...?

BonoVoxSupastar said:
The idea that two people the same in almost everyway one works 60 hours a week making barely 50,000 a year and one that works 30 hours a week and makes 7 million a year doesn't sit well with me.
Yes, but the idea of me getting a double master's degree and making the same as a high school dropout doesn't sit well with me.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The pursuit of happiness can be tied in with the pursuit of a fulfilling life. I don't know how a government can possibly make everyone happy at the same time.

I agree. Socialism and similar systems have been tried and proved unworkable. Part of the success of capitalism derives from the financial incentives provided to enterprise and hard work and one of the best roles for government is in ensuring that incentives to enterprise are minimal.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Such as...?

I don't honestly don't know, I'm not exactly overtly opposed to captialism. I think we as consumers have allowed it to go extremes and I believe that to be dangerous, I think there needs to some sort of device to protect us from such extremes. I think a whole new healthcare system is a good start. Maybe salary caps for certain occupations, I don't know to be honest, this is something I haven't a whole lot of background in.
Macfistowannabe said:

Yes, but the idea of me getting a double master's degree and making the same as a high school dropout doesn't sit well with me.

And it shouldn't. (Although I do know some individuals with PHd who make less than school teachers due to what field they chose, so it goes both ways.) That's not what I would ever propose.

Let's take a car for example. One car get's sold and the money is distributer from everyone from the one who sold it to the one that sweeps the floor at the plant. The one with the masters in design and came up with the concept that made the companies CEO millions, makes less than the one with a high school degree who sold it off the lot.

Just like in entertainment. Let's take a very successful TV show, and I mean good TV one that's well written and what not, not just pretty faces. Now the writer makes less per episode than the star, and I understand that but why is the 20 to 75 times more. The show wouldn't be anywhere without the writing yet we value this part more than that part. We as the consumer have allowed for some ridiculously high disproportions in society.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I think a whole new healthcare system is a good start.
This is within the bounds of good intentions, yes, but unfortunately, hospitals run themselves as businesses. This would require a huge facelift on society's behalf. Just for a side comment, I would recommend watching the movie John Q.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Let's take a car for example. One car get's sold and the money is distributer from everyone from the one who sold it to the one that sweeps the floor at the plant. The one with the masters in design and came up with the concept that made the companies CEO millions, makes less than the one with a high school degree who sold it off the lot.
This is a good example, and both sides have to be considered. The CEO bears a lot of responsibility to make ethical decisions on a daily basis, and is often approached with ethical dilemmas. If business is going well, I think it's very sensible to offer some great incentives to the designer, such as vacation benefits or pay time off. Let's not forget that the designer may be looking for higher status - and that car would be a great thing to have on a resume, and the company is probably going to shine his arse to keep him.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Just like in entertainment. Let's take a very successful TV show, and I mean good TV one that's well written and what not, not just pretty faces. Now the writer makes less per episode than the star, and I understand that but why is the 20 to 75 times more. The show wouldn't be anywhere without the writing yet we value this part more than that part. We as the consumer have allowed for some ridiculously high disproportions in society.
That's an interesting example as well. The writer usually doesn't have to deal with the publicity that the star of the show does. The most fortunate people on earth are those who can become incredibly successful, yet live as an everyday human being. The public life of a superstar has a lot of costs, and every move of theirs is monitored by the press and criticized by anyone who gives a hoot.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
This is within the bounds of good intentions, yes, but unfortunately, hospitals run themselves as businesses. This would require a huge facelift on society's behalf. Just for a side comment, I would recommend watching the movie John Q.
John Q is the perfect reason healthcare needs to change. Hospital running themselves? Hospital are slaves to the system just as much as anyone. We all take part in screwing up the system. I just read an article where our obese kids are now one of the newest reasons our insurance is raising.

Macfistowannabe said:

That's an interesting example as well. The writer usually doesn't have to deal with the publicity that the star of the show does. The most fortunate people on earth are those who can become incredibly successful, yet live as an everyday human being. The public life of a superstar has a lot of costs, and every move of theirs is monitored by the press and criticized by anyone who gives a hoot.

Yeah that really doesn't address the fact why one's making a million per episode and one is making 15,000. 15,000 per episode is pretty damn good compared to most people's salary, but it's the disproportions which concerns me. These disproportions occur in every field.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
John Q is the perfect reason healthcare needs to change. Hospital running themselves? Hospital are slaves to the system just as much as anyone. We all take part in screwing up the system. I just read an article where our obese kids are now one of the newest reasons our insurance is raising.
They are slaves in the respect that by law you must treat an emergency room patient. If my professor has his facts straight, hospitals aren't run by the government, but by corporations. That's not always the case though, there are about 1,360 hospitals in the US that are run by local, state, or federal government. Here's my source:

http://www.hospitalconnect.com/aha/resource_center/fastfacts/fast_facts_US_hospitals.html

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yeah that really doesn't address the fact why one's making a million per episode and one is making 15,000. 15,000 per episode is pretty damn good compared to most people's salary, but it's the disproportions which concerns me. These disproportions occur in every field.
I suppose that's a fact of life, although yes, I wouldn't mind making a whopping $15,000 per episode. The job would be just as hard as acting, but if I don't obsess over what the actor is making, I wouldn't complain too much. There are disproportions, but if you have what it takes to go into a well-paying profession that enables you to climb the ladder, you will find yourself enjoying the capitalist system. For some, it's social darwinism. For others, it's a method of finding personal satisfaction.
 
Macfistowannabe said:

I suppose that's a fact of life, although yes, I wouldn't mind making a whopping $15,000 per episode. The job would be just as hard as acting, but if I don't obsess over what the actor is making, I wouldn't complain too much. There are disproportions, but if you have what it takes to go into a well-paying profession that enables you to climb the ladder, you will find yourself enjoying the capitalist system. For some, it's social darwinism. For others, it's a method of finding personal satisfaction. [/B]

Look above you for you may find my point flying over your head.

But whatever...
 
Your point about disproportions is clear, I was just putting myself in the example situation you cited. There's no system that's 100% fair.
 
it seems that political and economic expressions are being used interchangeably in this thread, which is dangerous from the get-go i think.

capitalism is not synonymous with democracy.
socialism is not synonymous with authoritarianism.

living within a capitalist system i am an example of someone not inspired by dividends or profits. surely i hope to make a living wage, but i find personal fulfillment elsewhere. to say that the only way people will work or be creative is if you pay them is ignorant at best.

capitalism has failed the masses and it's high time that society stop praising it as the best option and start creating new options. the third world has been decimated and stands no real chance of recovering (they DO in fact have capitalism btw; just because we in the west don't see the shit end of the stick doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

it sort of reminds me of automobiles. you'd think that after 100+ years of running on gasoline we would've been able to develop a more cost effective and cleaner way to run the damn things, but no, gasoline is good enough. now look what we're stuck with...$50+ barrels of oil, $2+ gallons of gas, smog, a depleting ozone layer, and global warming. good one.
 
Se7en said:
it seems that political and economic expressions are being used interchangeably in this thread, which is dangerous from the get-go i think.

capitalism is not synonymous with democracy.
socialism is not synonymous with authoritarianism.

Capitalism works best and indeed thrives in democracies. Free societies and free markets are interrelated.

Authoritarianism is necessary to enforce socialism.

Se7en said:


living within a capitalist system i am an example of someone not inspired by dividends or profits. surely i hope to make a living wage, but i find personal fulfillment elsewhere. to say that the only way people will work or be creative is if you pay them is ignorant at best.

There is a certain percentage of people who feel as you do, not inspired by profits. That is fine. I would argue that if you're now making a living wage, your quality of life would not increase if we became socialist. Maybe it would increase slightly in the short term until the economy came to a screeching halt. So why take the money from people who choose to succeed and be rewarded?


Se7en said:

capitalism has failed the masses and it's high time that society stop praising it as the best option and start creating new options.

False.

Se7en said:

the third world has been decimated and stands no real chance of recovering (they DO in fact have capitalism btw; just because we in the west don't see the shit end of the stick doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

When was the Third World ever thriving?

Se7en said:

it sort of reminds me of automobiles. you'd think that after 100+ years of running on gasoline we would've been able to develop a more cost effective and cleaner way to run the damn things, but no, gasoline is good enough. now look what we're stuck with...$50+ barrels of oil, $2+ gallons of gas, smog, a depleting ozone layer, and global warming. good one.

easier said than done although I believe with capitalistic American ingenuity and free market forces we'll get there soon
 
you fools totally ruined my thread.

if you wanna talk about something else, go somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Zoomerang96 said:
you fools totally ruined my thread.

if you wanna talk about bush, go somewhere else.

there's gotta be 9000 threads dealing with all this shit somewhere else.
:rockon: No kidding....LOL
 
nbcrusader said:
Thread control is becoming a serious issues these days.....

yep....

sadly looks back at the AIDS thread which is not even debating the issue of AIDS and policy towards AIDS......

Should be renamed why people are opposed to prostitution...

not what the original article was about....

But....I digress....

Sorry Bear
 
Zoomerang96 said:
you fools totally ruined my thread.

if you wanna talk about something else, go somewhere else.
Sorry to say Zoomerang, but your thread was entitled "something for you dimwits to consider." You never really held us to a high standard to begin with.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
"the people on the right, and the people on the left really aren't that different at all. we're all pretty much the same when you don't talk about politics."

and

"these groups are often equally ridiculous. one side thinks bush is here to save them from their sins, while the other insists he's the devil. i think it's quite obvious that the truth must lie somewhere in between."

so often people take sides on debates simply to stand in the "right" or the "left". is it too much to ask for people to be issue-based in their opinions?


I have to disagree about being off topic.

I disagree with the premise of this thread, that the truth has to be in between.

My last post responded to a poster that hates capitalism.

I attempted to defend capitalism.

Is the truth in the middle, say, a welfare state? I disagree.

Is it now considered "right wing" to support capitalism?

As far as people being the same, I probably don't have much in common with se7en, apart from being a U2 fan. No problem with that, I just disagree with the premise of the thread
 
Dreadsox said:

sadly looks back at the AIDS thread which is not even debating the issue of AIDS and policy towards AIDS......

Should be renamed why people are opposed to prostitution...

not what the original article was about....


What is to debate about funding AIDS research and relief?

I think there is universal support for AIDS funding in FYM.
 
Back
Top Bottom